1. APAT, October 29, 2014

2. Acronym Legend 2 SEB - Source Evaluation Board SLPT - Streamlined Procurement Team (2 Methods)  PPT - Price and Past Performance Trade-off  LTO - Limited Trade-off

3. Comparison of Current SEB and SLPT (PPT and LTO) Factor – Mission Suitability (MS)  Ex. Subfactor: Management  Ex. Subfactor: Technical  MS uses strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies as a basis in developing a MS score (1000 Points) Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Factor Relative Importance Statement Used (MS/PP/Price Cost) Factor – Technical Acceptability  Pass/Fail Trade-off Factors Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Factor – Predefined Value Characteristics (PVC) (LTO only) Factor Relative Importance Statement Used (PP/Price/PVC for Technically Acceptable Proposals) SEB Process using MSSLPT - Both PPT & LTO

4. Comparison of Current SEB and SLPT (PPT and LTO) Cont. SEB Advantages  Ability to incorporate strengths into the model contract and opportunity to buy a better technical proposal.  Ability to “grade” offerors’ demonstration of understanding vs pass/fail scenario on SLPT. SLPT Advantages  Time/resource savings of eliminating PP and Cost/Price evaluations on Technically Unacceptable proposals vs evaluation of all factors on SEBs.  Less documentation required which lowers transaction costs and acquisition risk and improves chances for award without discussions. SEB Process using MS SLPT - Both PPT & LTO

5. Issues with Limited Trade-off While our current process allows us to add Predefined Value Characteristics (PVC) as a trade-off factor to the SLPT process – “Limited Trade-off”, in practice it has not occurred on our service contracts.Why? Establishing PVCs for services have been difficult to establish. With more than one PVC, a relative importance difference among them can complicate the trade-off process. 5

6. Proposed New Approach 6 In a nutshell, it is an SLPT, which in lieu of using “Predefined Value Characteristics”, it uses “Value Attributes” as a trade-off factor with Cost and PP. With “Value Attributes” we open it up to offerors to include any techniques or processes that they consider to increase the efficiency or effectiveness of performance above the baseline requirement. Offerors must be able to explain why it is of benefit, how it is to be implemented and provide implementing language to the model contract to get credit. Keep page limit small for this factor- No more than 10 pages.

7. Notional “L” Language L.XX.X Value Attribute - Volume III The offeror shall describe any technique or process that it considers to increase the efficiency or effectiveness in the performance of NAME OF REQUIREMENT, which it considers above the baseline requirement of the Technical Acceptability factor. The offeror shall describe how these techniques or processes would be implemented and why they are of benefit to the Government. Any proposed technique or process proposed, must be addressed in DRD-XX- XX, Value Attributes, to capture these concept(s) contractually. Duplication of content or concepts that are included under the Technical Acceptability Factor is acceptable. 7

8. Notional “M” Language M.XX.X Value Attribute -Volume III Only techniques or processes cited in this Volume and addressed in DRD-XX- XX, Value Attributes, will be evaluated under the Value Attribute Factor. These item(s) will be evaluated for efficiency, effectiveness, reasonableness, suitability and consistency with proposed approach under the Technical Acceptability Factor. This evaluation will be used to rate the overall value of the techniques and processes. 8

9. Notional “M” Language (Continued) A rating will be assessed at the overall factor level Offeror Value Attribute Assessment Ratings will be assigned as follows:  Significant Value Added – Aspect(s) of the Value Attribute’s proposal that significantly add to the potential for efficiency and/or effectiveness to contract performance above the baseline requirement.  Value Added – Aspect(s) of the Value Attribute’s proposal that add to the potential for efficiency and/or effectiveness to contract performance above the baseline requirement.  No/Minimal Value Added – Aspect(s) of the Value Attribute’s proposal that add a minimal amount of value or add no value to the potential for efficiency and/or effectiveness to contract performance above the baseline requirement. 9

10. Relative Importance Language-Default Language For those Offerors who are determined to be “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, tradeoffs will be made between Past Performance, Value Attributes, and Cost/Price.  Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price.  Cost/Price is more important than Value Attributes.  Past Performance is significantly more important than Value Attributes.  When combined, Past Performance and Value Attributes are more important than Cost/Price. 10

11. Point of Contact Information Craig Burridge Team Lead – JSC Source Selection Office Craig.G.Burridge@nasa.gov